coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 19 July 1992 as a result of a car accident, the applicant’s car got severely damaged. However, the insurance company failed to pay the damages and the applicant brought proceedings before the Istanbul Commercial Court, claiming compensation.
6.  Following two judgments which were quashed by the Court of Cassation, on 29 December 1998 the Istanbul Commercial Court partially accepted the case and held that the defendant company was to pay compensation to the applicant.
7.  The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of the Commercial Court and was paid the total sum on 22 October 1999.
8.  Subsequently, on 22 November 1999 the applicant initiated proceedings requesting reparation (munzam zarar) for his loss resulting from the delay in the payment of the compensation.
9.  On 12 February 2002 the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the case. That judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 13 January 2003.
10.  Having examined the case again, on 14 September 2004 the Commercial Court partially accepted the case and awarded the applicant a certain sum of reparation.
11.  On 30 January 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant was notified of this final decision on 28 March 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  On 1 December 1993 he lodged a claim with the domestic courts against four private individuals in a dispute over inheritance.
6.  On 6 November 2001 the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) rejected the claim as unsubstantiated.
7.  On 14 January 2002, following the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal against the above judgment in accordance with the procedural requirements, the District Court returned it unexamined.
8.  On 21 August 2002, following the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal against the ruling of 14 January 2002 in accordance with the procedural requirements, the District Court returned it unexamined.
9.  On 13 September 2002, following the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal against the ruling of 21 August 2002 in accordance with the procedural requirements, the District Court returned it unexamined. On 30 March 2005 and 14 July 2006 respectively, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 13 September 2002.
10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended his claim on two occasions. The courts adjourned twelve hearings following the applicant’s requests or due to his and other parties’ failure to appear. The applicant stated that he had not been duly informed of one of the hearings. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings by approximately ten months. Some thirty five hearings were further adjourned following other parties’ requests, their failure to appear, due to the absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972.
5.  On 24 May 2005 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud. Subsequently, additional charges were brought against the applicant (unlawful acquisition of a vehicle, money laundering and forging documents). Since 6 September 2005, he has remained in detention on remand.
6.  Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 24 March 2006 the case was transferred to the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, which on 24 November 2008 delivered a judgment.
7.  On 27 April 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Solomyanskyy Court, before which the proceedings are still pending.
8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings fifty four witnesses and four victims were interrogated, questioned or confronted, some of them repeatedly. This took the authorities about three months in total. Seven forensic examinations were ordered and lasted for about five months in total. Nine hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s and two other co-defendants’ representatives’, victims’ and witnesses’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed stating that his representative had not been informed of the hearings which he had not attended. One hearing was adjourned on the applicant’s request. Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly because the defendants were not escorted to the court, due to the witnesses’ or prosecutor’s failure to appear or because the judge was absent. On several occasions the courts issued compulsory summonses for witnesses.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.
5.  On 9 March 1995 he instituted defamation proceedings in the Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against Mrs M., a local official.
6.  On 27 March 1996 the court returned the applicant’s claim unexamined. On 19 September 1996 it also returned unexamined the applicant’s appeal against the above ruling.
7.  On 4 May 1998, following the objection lodged by the Deputy Head of the Supreme Court, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the ruling of 27 March 1996 and remitted the case for fresh examination.
8.  On 19 October 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 20 December 1999 the Regional Court extended the time-limits for the applicant to lodge an appeal in cassation against the above judgment, quashed it and remitted the case for fresh examination.
9.  On 15 September 2006 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered Mrs M. to pay him certain amounts in non‑pecuniary damage.
10.  On 10 October 2006 the applicant appealed against the above judgment. On 19 October 2006 the Court of Appeal requested him to rectify the appeal in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 17 January 2006 it rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated.
11.   On 17 March 2007 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 5 April 2007 the Supreme Court requested him to rectify the appeal in cassation in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 26 June2007 it rejected the appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.
12.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant several times specified his claim. Eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s, his representative’s or both parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s representative’s request, which protracted the proceedings by eight and a half months approximately.
13.  Thirteen further hearings were adjourned due to the respondent’s or her representative’s failure to appear, absence of the judge or for unspecified reasons. Between 23 October 2003 and 14 July 2006 the proceedings were suspended due to the respondent’s sickness.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.
5.  On 12 July 1999 he lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against the local authorities and his sister in a dispute over inheritance.
6.  On 17 August 2004 the District Court returned the applicant’s claim unexamined for his failure to attend the hearing. On 1 December 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh examination on the ground that the applicant had been absent from the hearing for a valid reason (sickness).
7.  On 13 November 2006 the District Court partially allowed the applicant’s claim.
8.  On 7 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the above judgment. On 21 December 2006 the Court of Appeal requested him to lodge the appeal, by 15 January 2007, in accordance with the procedural formalities. Following that, on 25 April 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated.
9.  On 10 July 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of 13 November 2006 and 25 April 2007.
10.  According to the Government, the District Court adjourned six hearings due to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s requests. This protracted the proceedings to approximately nine months. The applicant disagreed stating that he could not attend only four hearings, due to his sickness. The above court further adjourned thirty three hearings, mainly due to the respondent’s failure to attend the hearings or following their requests, due to the absence of a judge, the need to collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Ozorkow.
6.  On 20 September 2005 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and membership of an organised criminal gang and sentenced him to five years and eight months’ imprisonment.
7.  On 21 February 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. On 21 July 2006 the Łódź Regional Court again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years and eight months’ imprisonment.
8.  On 9 January 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment. On 24 January 2007 the appellate court sent its judgment, together with its written grounds, to the applicant. It was served on him on 10 February 2007.
9.  Meanwhile, on 7 February 2007 the court assigned a legal‑aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court.
10.  On 14 February 2007 the applicant requested the court to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal.
11.  In a letter to the court dated 16 February 2007 the lawyer assigned to the case informed the court that he had found no grounds on which to draft a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case. The court forwarded the letter to the applicant. It was served on him on 26 February 2007. The court did not inform the applicant of his further procedural rights.
12.  On 13 March 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Izmir.
5. On 12 December 2003 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court issued an arrest warrant for the applicant on suspicion of assault and attempted murder.
6. On 18 December 2003 the Izmir Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with the offences of assault and attempted murder.
7. On 6 October 2004 the applicant was arrested.
8. On 9 October 2004 the Antalya Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
9. On 1 December 2005 the Izmir Assize Court sentenced the applicant to six years and two months’ imprisonment.
10. On 21 February 2007 the Izmir Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial, having considered the time spent under detention on remand.
11. On 6 June 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 1 December 2005.
12. Between 12 October 2004 and 1 December 2005, the Izmir Assize Court examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either of its own motion or upon the applicant’s requests. On each occasion, the court ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the state of the evidence, nature of the offence, content of the file and the incomplete collection of evidence.
5.  The applicant was born in 2001 and lives in Warszawa.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant, represented by her mother, instituted civil proceedings against a hospital before the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), seeking compensation and a disability pension due to medical negligence and inadequate medical care during her birth.
8.  In the first hearing on 28 April 2003 the Regional Court ordered the defendant hospital to pay to the applicant PLN 250 (approx. EUR 60) per month by way of a provisional disability pension.
9.  On the applicant’s request, filed on 19 January 2005, the Warsaw Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of its 2003 decision. On 5 August 2005 the applicant began receiving the provisional disability pension.
10.  On 17 February 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a judgment which granted the applicant’s claims. It appears that this judgment has become final.
11.  On 27 May 2009 the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed compensation in the amount of PLN 20,000.
12.  On 9 July 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal acknowledged that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had been excessive and awarded her PLN 5,000 (approx. EUR 1,200) by way of just satisfaction. The court held that certain delays in the case had resulted from the erroneous transfer of the case file to the wrong medical court experts. It further observed that in 2006 and 2007 there had been a one-year-long period of unjustifiable inactivity on the part of the Regional Court. In the view of the Court of Appeal, some other delays could be explained by the need to obtain various medical expert opinions, often prompted by the applicant’s numerous requests to that effect.
13.  The Court of Appeal explained that the award of PLN 5,000 was justified by the overall length and the level of complexity of the proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for a higher award, taking note of the fact that her main claims had been properly secured by the payment of the provisional disability pension.
4.  The applicants were minority shareholders of YTONG, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.
5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of that company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder.
6.  On 25 June 2003 the applicants lodged with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to the applicable law, bilateral investment treaties and their property rights. Asserting the unlawfulness of the asset transfer contract on account of its clause reserving for arbitration jurisdiction over disputes concerning the value of the compensation, they further emphasised a number of irregularities of the resolution. They informed the court administering the commercial register about the action.
7.  On 11 July 2003 the court in charge of the commercial register approved the registration of the transfer. No hearing was held before that decision, which was not served on the applicants as they did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. Based on this decision the company YTONG, a.s. was deleted from the commercial register on 1 September 2003.
8.  On 11 December 2003 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed the first and second applicants’ appeal contesting that decision. It ruled that since the applicants did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, they were not entitled to appeal their outcome.
9.  On 6 January 2005 the Regional Court rejected the applicants’ claim to set aside the resolution. The applicants appealed.
10.  On 28 November 2005 the High Court, relying on Article 220h § 4 of the Commercial Code, discontinued the set-aside proceedings without examining the merits.
11.  On 24 June 2008 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law holding that the decision to discontinue the proceedings had not been a decision on the merits and thus an appeal on points of law was not admissible.
12.  On 11 December 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal, in which they claimed an impairment of their right to a fair trial in the set-aside proceedings by reason of the limitation on access to a court brought about by Article 220h § 4 of the Commercial Code. The Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court had not erred in its impugned decision of 24 June 2008 and this part of the appeal was thus manifestly ill-founded. Since the appeal on points of law was not admissible in the applicants’ case, the court held that it was not an effective remedy to be exhausted and consequently their constitutional appeal against the decisions of the Regional and High Courts had been lodged out of time.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Saki.
5.  On 31 March 1994 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of military service evasion. On 20 January 1995 he was arrested. He remained in detention in the SIZO for three months. The applicant states that he was beaten and ill-treated by inmates and that, despite his cardiac diseases, he was not provided with proper medical examination while in detention.
6.  According to the documents provided by the Government, on 17 November 2001, following two remittals of the case for additional investigations, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued.
7.  On 30 April 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Saki Court (“the court”) against the local prosecutors and the military enlistment office, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the allegedly unlawful prosecution.
8.  Between 10 January 1999 and 5 September 2001 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
9.  On 15 November 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings in part of the applicant’s claim for compensation for pecuniary damage as, pursuant to the legislation then in force, he should have sought compensation directly from the prosecutors, and rejected as unsubstantiated his claim in part of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
10.  On 19 August 2002 the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the above judgment.
11.  On 10 October and 25 November 2002, respectively, the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the above decisions and a request for the renewal of the procedural time-limits for lodging it.
12.  Between 26 June 2003 and 8 April 2004 the case file remained in the Court of Appeal for unspecified reasons.
13.  On 29 April and 4 May 2004, respectively, the court renewed the procedural time-limits and sent the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, which on 7 November 2006 rejected it as unsubstantiated.
14.  In the course of the proceedings one hearing was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. Four times the courts requested the applicant to lodge his appeals in accordance with the procedural requirements. This delayed the proceedings by approximately four and a half months.
7.  The applicant was born in 1970.
8.  On 25 September 2008 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to 9 years’ imprisonment. On 11 December 2008 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. On 3 March 2009 the Łódź Regional Court found the applicant guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s lawyer appealed. By a judgment of 4 June 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.
9.  Throughout the judicial proceeding the applicant was represented by a legal­aid lawyer.
10.  By a letter of 3 August 2009 the lawyer informed the court that he had not found any grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal.
11.  By a letter of 7 August 2009 the court forwarded the lawyer’s statement to the applicant. The letter read as follows:
 “The Registry of the Łódź Court of Appeal forwards [...] a copy of a statement of your legal-aid lawyer, advocate Mr P.K., submitted in accordance with Article 84 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for your information.”
12.  The letter as well as the opinion were served on the applicant on 12 August 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Athens.
5.  On 28 November 2000 the Ministry of Finance imposed a fine of 51,693,912 drachmas (GRD) (deficit: GRD 34,501,041 + default interest: GRD 17,192,871, i.e. 93,012.21 euros (EUR)) on the applicant for his alleged responsibility in the creation of a budget deficit in the Department of Urban Planning at the city of Chania, where he was posted (act no. 5654/28.11.2000).
6.  On 22 March 2001, the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging act no. 5654/28.11.2000.
7.  A hearing took place on 6 May 2003 and 20 April 2004.
8.  By judgment dated 29 June 2004 the State Audit Council partially accepted the applicant’s appeal. The act was annulled only regarding the part ordering the applicant to pay default interest. As the court observed, the applicant had, among other functions, accounting responsibilities within the Planning Department and, under domestic law in case of public deficit, liability was incurred. Further, it was noted that, as it appeared from the evidence submitted, the applicant had been acting unlawfully in the performance of his duties. He was found to be liable for the payment of sums greater than those determined as wages and, also, certain amounts had been paid to persons not eligible to receive them. Moreover, it was admitted that the applicant had previously been questioned by the inspector in charge, put forward his views on the matter and had also been invited to restore the deficit in question (judgment no. 1502/2004). The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 October 2004.
9.  On 23 September 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and a hearing took place on 7 November 2007.
10.  On 4 June 2008 the Plenary of the State Audit Council upheld judgment no. 1502/2004, after having concluded that the first instance court’s judgment was right and sufficiently reasoned (judgment no. 1456/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 21 August 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Split.
5.  On 25 March 2004 the Split police lodged a request for minor-offences proceedings to be instituted against the applicant in the Split Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Splitu).
6.  On 3 March 2006 the Split Minor Offences Court found that on 15 March 2004 at about 10.35 p.m. the applicant had had 0.21 grams of heroin on her, which amounted to a minor offence under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Narcotics Abuse Act. She was fined 1,700 Croatian kunas (HRK) on the basis of section 54(1)(1) and 54(3) of the same Act. This decision became final on 15 March 2006.
7.  On 8 February 2005 the Split State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Splitu) lodged an indictment with the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) accusing the applicant of possession of heroin. The police report was included in the case file.
8.  On 19 March 2007 the Split Municipal Court, in criminal proceedings against the applicant, found the applicant guilty of possessing 0,14 grams of heroin on 15 March 2004 at about 10.35 p.m. and fined her HRK 1,526. The previous fine was to be included in this one. The applicant was also ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 400.
9.  The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) on 5 June 2007 but a suspended sentence of four month’s imprisonment was applied with a one-year probation period.
10.  The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint, alleging a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 7 May 2009 on the ground that the Croatian legal system did not exclude the possibility of punishing the same person twice for the same offence when the same act is prescribed both as a minor offence and a criminal offence.